first acting editor, as I am informed, was Mr. Thomas Falconer, a barrister, and now a county court judge, Mill guiding him, "but not being the active correspondent with contributors. During Mill's absence in the autumn of 1836, Mr. Falconer did all the editing uncontrolled, and, in the exercise of his editorial discretion, rejected Carlyle's article on Mirabeau, which Mill had previously approved of; the rejection was afterward reversed by Mill, who printed the article in the following January (1837). Although not the impression left by the narrative in the "Autobiography," I am constrained by the facts within my knowledge to believe that Robertson's period as assistant editor must have begun in the summer of 1837; and Molesworth's retirement could not have been till the end of the year. This affects our estimate of the numbers issued at Mill's sole risk. Molesworth may have borne the cost of ten or eleven numbers, which would leave Mill seven or eight, of the eighteen in all. Molesworth expended, no doubt, a considerable sum in starting it; and Mill must have been both very sanguine and also very much bent upon propagating his views in politics, philosophy, and literature, to take the whole risk upon himself. He paid his subeditor, and also sixteen pounds a sheet to the contributors that took payment. On these eight numbers he must have lost considerably. I can form some estimate of the loss from knowing what Hickson paid to contributors, when he took over the "Review," and worked it on the plan of making it pay its own expenses, he giving his labor gratis.[1]
- ↑ I was well acquainted with Mill's sub-editor, John Robertson, now dead. He was a fellow townsman, and was the medium of my introduction to Mill. I had, for several years, abundant opportunities of conversing with him, and learned a great deal about Mill during our intercourse. But he was very reticent about his own relations with Mill; he never told me, at least, what was his pecuniary allowance as sub-editor; nor did he explain how they worked together in the matter of editing: his habit was to style himself editor, and to seem to take the sole management. He has not left behind him any record of the connection between him and Mill; while I know enough of his history to make me doubt whether it commenced in 1836. Those that knew Robertson were not a little taken aback by Mill's character of him: "A young Scotchman, who had some ability and information, much industry, and an active, scheming head, full of devices for making the 'Review' more salable, etc." I remember on one occasion when Mr. Disraeli, in the House of Commons, quoted Mill as an authority on some economical view, Lord John Russell, in reply, spoke of him as a learned author; the next time I met him, he accosted me with his humorous twinkle, "You see what I am now, according to Lord John Russell." The malapropos here was not even so bad. Robertson's attainments were of the slenderest description, and his industry very fitful; but he could make a vigorous and brilliant display both in composition and in conversation. He contributed striking articles to the "Review," his best being his "Cromwell." He was also a very good writer of newspaper articles. His impetus and suggestiveness in conversation drew out Mill, who never talked better than he did with him. But although he made friends in London circles and in the clubs, he was very distasteful to many of Mill's associates, and increased the difficulties of carrying on the "Review"; being, in fact, for a novus homo, as Henry Mill styled him, somewhat arrogant. He took much interest in the Scotch Non-Intrusion controversy, and coached the Melbourne Government upon the question. About 1844 he disappeared from London, and was afterward rarely heard of. Mill scarcely ever mentioned his name in later years. His widow has gathered together the
